Interesting article. I think that we can but words on all those concepts. What is the video games properties that are different from other medias ? The answer is quite clear: interactivity. This concept contains all the parameters you can define to build an interactive experience: parameters such as the level design, the actions you allow the player to do, the feedbacks of a "button-pressure"... All these concepts are unique to video games, and that's what we must have an influence on, to create those emotions you are talking about.

These are important questions I think.

Adam: "The one thing I do think that games have going for them is that they are more able than any other medium to show things to players."

Are you sure you meant to use the word "show"? That's what movies are for, imo. Games let you "do" things. The saying goes, "Don't show, do."

Adam: "But maybe in order for our games to have meaning we do need to take some of that control away from players. Or, alternately, and I think this could be even more powerful, what if we used the player's control as a way to demonstrate something to them?"

Yes, use the player's control to better effect. The key I believe is to scale down the scope of a game, its mechanics and give players a limited but plausible set of actions and choices to make that do convey meaning out of the experience.

Maybe the one thing that games can communicate that other media can't is what it feels like to be YOU. A game could possibly express what it feels like to be someone else, but to embrace the full potential of the medium, because it can take data input from players, crunch it and spit it back out, it could help players gain better understanding of themselves, what they feel and why.

Well, I still see a tendency in the English market for people to equate "interactivity" with "physical action" rather than consider the fact that interactivity is also mental and emotional. In fact, I often argue that this is the downfall of the English market - that interactivity is mental and emtional first and foremost, and any physical interaction is secondary, at least as far as truly capturing the audience. For example, Japanese adventures, visual novels, and simulations have very simple mechanics but are highly interactive due to their creation of empathy with the characters, story events, and settings. The English market fixation on physical interaction rather than the emotional and mental components has caused such games to be rejected here despite their enormous popularity in Japan and elsewhere in East Asia. In this way, I think Adam was right to say that games "show" things to the audience. Games do this in a different way than books, films, plays, etc, but that only changes the method, not the mechanic. Specifically, I'd say that games show consequence directly to the player rather than showing things to an audience as a "third party perspective" (aside from people who watch others play, of course).

On the other hand, I'd like to offer a comment to you, Adam. There are lots of games with clear messages, I think, but I also think many of them are not developed in the English market or even available here. For example, companies like Konami are extremely well known in Japan for dating sims like Tokimeki Memorial, and the message of such a game is that interpersonal communications and relationships require work, mutual acceptance and understanding. The message of "raising sims" or "managing sims" like Princess Maker or Tanjou Debut is that supervising and aiding the growth of anyone is a complex juggling act with many different parameters, some of which are controllable and some of which are not. If we go into some of the hardcore, abusive types of content, the message is often the same as one might find in a similar work from writing or film. Specifically, the mssage is often that the consequences of abuse are unhappiness for others, pain, and suffering, and possibly unhappiness for the abuser, as well, with the possibility of perpetuation of an abusive cycle.

Ultimately, I don't agree that video games are more mechanistic than other media. For example, a film requires a great deal of complex, technical know-how, and directors rely on many other experts in various fields to create a particular movie (makeup, lighting, set design, film processing, camera work, etc). The same is true for live theatre, music, or any other media. The one exception I can think of would be a direct oral performance of some kind with minimalistic settings. However, even that could require a great deal of technical assistance if the audience was huge and in a modern setting rather than a small, personal group with direct interaction with the presenter. In this respect, I don't think games are any more unique than other media. All types of media have their strengths and weaknesses.

Reid - your last point, about using games as a way for players to learn about themselves is something that I've been thinking about of late. It's definitely an idea I'm planning on exploring myself, and I'd definitely like to see other games try to operate on that level. As for the term "show", perhaps "demonstrate" would have been a better choice. I simply meant that I find it more interesting when, instead of simply making an argument, an artist is able to get across an idea by showing/demonstrating the process and the results.

Dave - I'm intrigued by your comments about non-English games. Unfortunately, English is the only language I'm fluent in (I speak small amounts of French and Spanish, but not enough to play a game where they were the primary languages). My comments are really just about the North American market, since that's what I'm familiar with. I'd like to see some English companies makes games like the ones you're describing though, though sound potentially interesting.

I do think game making is more mechanistic than other art forms, though. Perhaps "technical" would have been a better word? What I mean is, to write a novel, the only technical skill required is literacy. The rest is intangible. Similarly with music, writing a great song has less to do with technical knowledge, and more to do with intuiting an engaging melody. I have very little technical knowledge of music from either a playing or recording standpoint, but I've recorded songs that (to me, at least) sound very good. Movies rely on actors whose ability is also largely intuition. I'm not the greatest programmer in the world, but the idea of programming something intuitively rather than logically seems strange to me. But again, maybe the issue isn't the medium but my lack of skill at it.

Ian Bogost actually wrote an entire book on this very issue--Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Video Games. In the book, he defines and argues for the notion that games are "procedural rhetoric." Procedural rhetoric is the art of persuasion through the use of processes. I'm probably butchering this, but Bogost argues that, while interactivity is indeed important, the key thing that sets video games apart from other art forms is their "procedurality." Games communicate ideas about processes that no other medium can.

Even though It may not be truly original to games I believe the one thing that makes a games presentation unique is the ability to provide choice. Apart from the ultimate choice of viewing a source of media or not; this isn't something you see a lot of in other forms of media. Interactivity is one thing, but it's more an adjustment to an already prevalent mechanic, for in all technicality a person is "interacting" with any other form of media, whether they be listening or watching or using any other form of sensory input. If a person couldn't interact with a form of media I would consider it quite useless.

You might consider a movie to have a greater level of complexity than a book or song for not only does it incorporate their mechanics, but it also adds visual stimulus. A game could be said to take the concept one step further, for not only does it have all of the above mechanics, but it also adds a more physical level of interaction. (lets not get into any bickering over superior art forms, I'm merely referring to the concept that a film can contain music, and it could also display the written word if it should so choose, a game can do all this and more)

Now a linear game is much like a movie, just with this added layer of complexity applied to it. If you took a meaningful movie, and simply put the player at the helm, forced to make the same choices as the films protagonist, you would have a physically interactive film. (and a very boring game, though not necessarily for everyone), and you'd probably deliver a fairly similar meaning (maybe more or less impact based on how much the player comes to identify with the character they're playing)

But if you give the player the option for choice, true meaningful choice, then that's something else entirely. Other media attempts this from time to time, but cannot accomplish it to the same degree as a game can. What if you took a meaningful film, where the main character instead of helping someone, turns away from them instead? This would completely pervert the meaning the writer is trying to deliver, altering the entire mood and tone of the game. But I think that's where a misunderstanding of the media comes into play. I ask you this, should a game producer come up with a message and deliver it through a game, or rather should they come up with a situation, and allow the player to infer their own message as a result of their choices? Perhaps the media, in and of itself, does not lend itself to delivering a singular message. Perhaps if you merely wanted to share your viewpoint with the rest of the world you would be better served writing a movie, song or book (a form of media someone interacts with already acknowledging the fact that they are about to witness someone else's thoughts and emotions in action, whether they identify with them or not). I believe a game is about giving someone an experience, rather than delivering a message.

Now this has thus far only been about the actual delivery of a message, as to the question "can a game communicate emotions that another media cannot", I'd say probably not. But there are certain emotions I would say could be delivered more easily and, dare I say more effectively, by a game. For instance guilt is a good example, it is difficult (though not impossible) to make someone who's reading a book experience guilt, but when something horrid in a game occurs as a direct result of a player's actions, guilt could easily be one of the primary reactions felt. The same goes for feelings of self worth and accomplishment, other media can provide these, just not with the same degree of ease a game can.

Anyhow that's my rambling done, peace out.

Will Wright once said in an interview that he do believe games can convey emotions, just not the same kind of emotions than other medias.

It striked me as true at this moment and I still believe it now. Interactivity in games allow a different kind of involvment on the part of the player than the catharsis effect of cinema or theater (or comics, or any other form or linear narration). In these linear narrations, you get involved with the characters, getting to know them, what they think, who they are, having expectations about their next actions. In games, these things can of course all be true because it borrows a lot from the older linear forms of narrations, but interactivity adds an extra layer. The player must analyse situations, behaviors, the effecs of his actions and thus develop different kind of expectations and a different kind of involvment.

It's extremely hard to explain with words, but these things just not "feel" the same deep down inside. There IS something unique about games and it creates a whole space of creation where an "artist" can create specific expectations, surprise the player, challenge him, move him, ...

Art, in all it's forms, is extremely subtle but I have absolutely no doubt about the "uniqueness" of games as a medium. There is an immense ground of possibilities for conveying messages and creating an impact but it is largely undiscovered. I hope there will be more of what we can call "game artists" in the future that are bound to exploring it. I sure hope I can one day call myself a "game artist".

Thank you for writing this article – it provokes a lot of interesting commentary and I have long been intrigued by the question of art and how it may or may not relate to games. Thanks to everyone who has contributed!

With that, I would like to respond:

“I do think game making is more mechanistic than other art forms, though. Perhaps "technical" would have been a better word? What I mean is, to write a novel, the only technical skill required is literacy. The rest is intangible. Similarly with music, writing a great song has less to do with technical knowledge, and more to do with intuiting an engaging melody. I have very little technical knowledge of music from either a playing or recording standpoint, but I've recorded songs that (to me, at least) sound very good.”

With every craft, there are always technical considerations matched with artistic talents and concerns. My background is in music, specifically composition, so I feel a personal connection with the comments above. For example, when writing a new piece of music for an instrument, I have to first concern myself with the properties of that instrument (range, timbre, tuning issues, etc.) and think about it as I’m writing. If it’s a piece for more than one instrument, then issues with orchestrational combinations are something to keep in mind. Additionally, there are notational issues at hand (i.e. how an idea is to be communicated from what I hear in my head to how it is represented on paper). And so on and so forth. Knowledge of these issues help in making the process easier.

I agree with you that part of the process is intuitive, but at one point I have to ask myself, “why do I like this (motive, chord, rhythm, etc.)?” When you do, it forces you to become more intimate with the material and try and understand why it speaks to you. It’s part of a discovery process in which the technical understanding of this material supports your intuition. The motive becomes a phrase, the phrase becomes a section, the section becomes a movement, the movement becomes a piece; all like dominoes that serve as building blocks (much like programming logic).

When everything is said and done, the listening audience is not concerned, at least in my experience, with all the choices that I have had to make along the way. They just want to listen. I can only offer them the final product without knowing what their personal experience is. As I read a well-written, well-crafted book or watch a great film, I don’t bother asking about the author’s/director’s technical concerns or choices. I just experience it in its ultimate form. The same goes for a game. I just experience the game.

“While there is obviously a great deal of theory to music, it is entirely possible to play great music without any idea what that theory is. And even if you know every last bit of the theory, at the end of the day great music comes from strange, indescribable places of inspiration. ”

Yes, I agree with you, in part. It is possible to play music without any idea of what theory is, just like it possible to play a game without any idea of how programming, rigging, 3D modeling, implementation, etc. work. This is at the level of the end-user.

However, how are you to write music without understanding the aforementioned processes or tasks at hand, at least a little bit? Some software programs alleviate these issues, but there are technical bumps here to get over as well. I don’t want to get into the discussion of music theory, but without having listened and trained your musical ear, how might you frame your process of writing, especially good, interesting, NEW writing? The music functions under a set of common practice theories that may, at first, seem intuitive, but ultimately fall within a technical understanding. The theory however, like programming, is just a means to an end. The more you understand its syntax and relationships, the less you may need to rely on it and ‘break’ the rules.

“So at the end of the day, I'm left wondering how I can use the particular qualities of gameplay to communicate things that I could not communicate using other art forms. The reason I've gotten into game design/production is precisely so that I could expand the set of tools available to me to communicate. To find new ways to express meaning.”

This is where your creativity comes in. Whether something (music, video game, film, etc.) MEANS something I think is a dangerous question to ask for the creator. Ultimately, who knows if what you want the end-user to receive is going to be received. Your job is to CREATE; meaning is derived in too many different ways. Your tool is programming. If you want the process to become less technical and more intuitive, then you have to just get better at it using those tools. Again, it’s a means to an end and not the end itself.

The unique thing about many games today is that they have HUGE teams, all serving different functions. The more expansive the team, the more concentrated the individual tasks become. If you are on a programming team of 50 and your job is tile implementation (I’m talking out of my butt a little here), then you have quite a small scope and little influence on how a project is going to pan out. If you lead a project in both an artistic and technical capacity, then you may have a great deal of how a project is going to proceed. I suppose your desired role depends on what kind of games you would like to be a part of and how much creative control you’d like to retain.

“One is that video games are simply not used as a didactic medium.”

I think the next question to ask is, do we want games to be didactic? In my opinion, no. Games are meant to be played, just like we PLAY music. I’m not saying you are not going to learn things (hand-eye coordination, for instance), but games are created for the purpose of play. If you want to tell a story, fine. If you want to create a new world, fine. These can be done in a number of ways. Games are unique to themselves because of their specific experience. Interactivity, procedural rhetoric, or metaphors for other things; games require their own sets of identity and means of experience. They certainly aren’t intuitive, but in the hands of the user, we may want to the experience to feel that way.

We're being fed a stream of violent or action oriented games. These are some of the most primal forms of 'doing'. How are you supposed to have an emotional attachment when you're killing 400 people over the course of the game?

The other part of the problem is that every moment is usually preconceived. In a movie you succumb to that, it's a part of the movie watching process. In a game you're the leading role but then you have very little input over what the character says or does which decide the game's outcome. No wonder when you get a first person shooter virtually no one plays it for the single player or story. And even RPGs still keep two separate sides: The story/character development and the action/battles/exploration. They're combining these better but even Mass Effect hasn't found the solution. There's more.

Sandbox games and games like Passage are simultaneous steps in the right direction. GTA IV at least gives you a city and allows you to maneuver pretty nimbly throughout it to accomplish otherwise straight ahead goals. That's the bigger, better, faster part. But games like Passage do the thinking and make art. The game is meaningless to some, it's open to interpretation. Which is why it's only now art games are being released: it's finally cheap and easy enough for the average person to make a game.

I mean you hope it's sooner than later we're able to create Liberty City full of meaning (the media in it already gives it some). A Liberty City where no words need to be said to understand a message. Again, it does this on some levels but if it weren't a blockbuster there'd be room for much more creative thought.

Games can be art but companies pushed the money making aspect before the artistic side could catch up.